The House divided:-Ayes 99; 21: Majority 78. Main Question put, and agreed to. Noes | the present measure such amended provisions from that Act as might be necessary. Adopting that view, he proposed to strike out Clause 35. METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT Order for Committee read. SIR BENJAMIN HALL said, that the previous clause relating to the appointment of the chairman of the Metropolitan Board had already been postponed, as a suggestion had been made that, instead of the members of the Board sending in three names to the Secretary of State for him to select from, they should elect their chairman themselves. Under these circumstances, he proposed that Clauses 27 and 28, which had a connection with the appointment of the chairman, should likewise be postponed. SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY inquired whether the members of the Board were to have any qualification? SIR BENJAMIN HALL thought it would be best to leave the Vestries and District Boards to elect such persons as they thought proper. He proposed to bring up a clause to provide that the election of the members of the Board should take place in great parishes by wards, which should be framed in conformity with the Municipal Corporation Act. Clauses 27 and 28 postponed. SIR BENJAMIN HALL, in reply to an observation from Viscount EBRINGTON, said, it was impossible for him at present to say what should be the exact number of the members of the Board; but, whether it was fixed at thirty or at forty-five, he thought nine members, as proposed by the present clause, would constitute a fair quorum. LORD SEYMOUR thought the clause had better be postponed until the number of the members of the Board was decided on. Clause postponed. Clauses 30 to 34 agreed to, with amend ments. Clause 35, SIR BENJAMIN HALL said, that he had promised, after the Bill passed through Committee, to introduce a measure for the purpose of amending Hobhouse's Act; but it had been suggested to him to insert in VISCOUNT EBRINGTON trusted that full opportunity would be afforded of discussing the amended provisions from Hobhouse's Act, proposed to be incorporated in the present Bill. MR. T. DUNCOMBE said, that all parties were agreed as to the principle. of Hobhouse's Act, and no difference of opinion really existed between the noble Lord and the right hon. Baronet. Clause struck out. Clause 36 agreed to, with amendments. LORD SEYMOUR expressed an opinion that the clause gave too much power to a committee, composed, it might be, of only three persons. He thought the committee should be required to report to the Board, and have their proceedings confirmed. MR. LABOUCHERE said, he thought the powers of taxation conferred by the clause were far too large. It was very dangerous to give great taxing powers to a committee of not more than three members, and he hoped the right hon. Baronet would take care to give security against abuse of such power. SIR BENJAMIN HALL said, he would take care that such security should be given, and he would bring up the clause again for reconsideration. Clause agreed to. Clauses 38 and 39 agreed to. On Clause 40, providing that the books should be open to inspection, SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY thought some protection should be given to owners of property as well as to ratepayers, by enabling them to inspect the books. VISCOUNT EBRINGTON suggested that this would be done by inserting the words "owner of property," along with "churchwardens, overseers, &c. as entitled to inspect books. SIR BENJAMIN HALL said, he should agree to the Amendment. Clause, as amended, agreed to; as were clauses up to 46. On Clause 47, which provides that all sewers (except main sewers) shall be vested in Vestries and District Boards. SIR BENJAMIN HALL said, he looked upon this as one of the most important clauses of the Bill. It had not been inserted without due consideration, and in the firm belief that it was absolutely ne cessary for the good working of the mea- gest that, at first, at any rate while the sure. It was, in short, an essential feature great works of drainage were going on, of the Bill, and he hoped the House would the whole management of the sewers at once determine the point which it raised, should be placed under the General Metroas that point materially affected other parts politan Board. His experience led him to of the measure. think that by the appointment of a paid chairman, who would devote his time to these duties, the works would be much more efficiently done than they were likely to be under the management of thirty-six independent clashing and conflicting authorities. He therefore pressed the Committee to place the whole management in the hands of the General Metropolitan Board. MR. MASTERS SMITH wished to hear from the right hou. Gentleman what the definition of a main sewer was? SIR BENJAMIN HALL said, the main sewers to be dealt with under the Bill were all mentioned in a Parliamentary paper, which had been laid on the table of the House. That document would be inIcluded in a schedule. LORD ROBERT GROSVENOR did not think the system proposed in the clause would involve those conflicting interests that his noble Friend seemed to apprehend. He thought it would be exceedingly inconvenient if persons in a particular district were to be compelled to wait on a central Board at a distance whenever having the matter settled by an authority to be found at their own doors. If this provision were rejected, and in its place a central Board appointed, the Act would, in his opinion, become unworkable. Besides, the noble Lord might depend upon it, that the inhabitants of the metropolis were determined to have the management of their own local works, and, unless the management of the sewers was intrusted to the vestries and local Boards, the Bill would never be carried into effect. VISCOUNT EBRINGTON wished to call the attention of the House to the inconvenience that he feared would arise from the operation of this clause. In the Fleet valley, for instance, there were nine separate districts; and, when it was considered that the sewers would require to be constructed on one system, it became obvious a sewer was to be constructed, instead of that the arrangement proposed in the clause would be very inconvenient. He knew it was said that everything done by the District Boards would be under the sanction of the Metropolitan Board of Works. Now, that sanction would be either a matter of course, in which case it would fail to secure efficiency; or, else it would involve double toil and trouble, and be equivalent to doing the work twice over. The central Board was to interpose, where necessary, for the purpose of securing harmony of co-operation among the dif ferent districts; but, he contended, that just as much correspondence, just as much heartburning and contention, would be the result of such a control, as would be experienced if the whole works were placed under the direct management of a centralised authority. It was almost impossible to conceive that the thirty districts included in the Bill could rightly carry out the works intrusted to them, considering the differences in the natural position of the parishes, and other circumstances that would stand in the way. He objected, also, to the multiplication of officers and engineers that would be required under this provision of the Bill. For these reasons, looking at the inconvenience arising from the different forms and shapes of the parishes, at the manner in which their boundaries stood, with the natural "lay of the ground, and also at the enormous multiplication of offices, and the increase of taxation that would be unnecessarily imposed on the ratepayers, he would sug SIR WILLIAM CLAY agreed with the noble Lord who had just spoken, that the inhabitants of every part of the metropolis were anxious to have the charge of their own district works. He did not see that such difficulties attended the operation of the clause as the noble Lord (Viscount Ebrington) seemed to imagine. The system would soon work itself into shape, and the different parishes would be found going on in a most amicable and practical spirit, the different parish surveyors, of course, acting with a knowledge of the rules laid down by the central Board. MR. H. BARING did not see why the General Metropolitan Board should not have the management of these works? The power given to the District Boards by this clause was enormous. MR. W. WILLIAMS never expected to hear a Member for Marylebone in that House endeavouring to supersede a system of local government by one of centrali sation. The noble Lord was not content with throwing the sewerage into the hands of a central body, but he suggested that been able to effect. He could say that, in the whole system should be vested in one one of the large parishes of the metropolis individual. If the power of local manage--in the borough, for example, which he ment were taken out of this Bill, a storm represented-there was a particular street of opposition would be raised to it in every consisting of first-class houses, from sixty parish of the metropolis. to 100 in number, where only two houses had a drain into the sewer. There ought, therefore, to be given powers to make drains into the common sewer, and to do away with the abomination of cesspools. Not only the great landowners in the metropolis, but the intermediate persons who held under them, desired to have this power taken from a central Board, and vested in local authorities, so that this town, the greatest city in the world, might not be left in the disgraceful state he had mentioned. MR. LABOUCHERE said, the question was, whether the local sewerage should be entrusted to one central body or to smaller bodies in the several districts, and he must say he was inclined to prefer the plan laid down in the Bill to that proposed by the noble Lord (Viscount Ebrington). He thought the Committee would do wisely in adopting the system that was most consonant with the wishes of the inhabitants of the metropolis, and he could not believe that the difficulties which lay in the way of working that system were so great as the noble Lord seemed to think. At the same time, he should have been satisfied if the districts had been fewer in number. SIR BENJAMIN HALL said, that the question with respect to the division of localities into districts had been fully considered. The Bill had to deal with large areas already divided, and he had adapted, as far as he could, the new legislation to the existing divisions. The large drainage of the metropolis had failed under one Board, and he had endeavoured to make the existing divisions of the metropolis as useful as possible for the purpose. Considering that the population of the metropolis amounted to 2,500,000 persons, and was increasing every year, he did not believe that the number of the District Boards would be found too many. It had been asked why such large powers were given to them; but if he threw on them the duty of certain drainage he must also give them sufficient powers to execute that duty, and those powers were not more arbitrary than existed in the City of London. There were about 1,500 miles of streets in the metropolis, not reckoning little courts or alleys; and there were only 934 miles of sewerage; so that there were 566 miles of streets without any sewerage whatever. That was under the system of centralisation. Taking the number of houses at 306,000, he calculated that there were 150,000 houses without sewerage in front or back, into which the refuse of those houses could possibly be drained. That was a fact startling enough to induce him to press the clause under consideration, in order that the local districts might do that which the centralised authority had not VISCOUNT EBRINGTON said, the right hon. Baronet placed the House in this dilemma-that they must either submit to be governed by a central Board, or adopt a far too great number of minor Boards calculated upon far too small area limits. Both these systems were evils, but he thought one central Board the lesser evil of the two. If the right hon. Baronet would constitute seven or eight minor Boards of reasonable dimensions and within reasonable limits, he would be quite willing to vest in them powers even greater than those the right hon. Baronet proposed to give to the minor Boards in the Bill. He would not, however, press the matter to a division. SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY regarded the present as a doubtful scheme, and conceived that it would have been better to have established two, three, or four bodies exercising supreme power in their several districts than thirty-six, each of which, having separate staffs, would occasion enormous cost, and lead to every possible sort of collision. LORD SEYMOUR wished to know whether, if any of these District Boards desired to run a sewer under a public building, the Metropolitan Board would have a distinct power to prohibit a work of that kind, which might be dangerous to the safety of the building; and he also wished to know why this particular number of thirty-six districts had been selected? SIR BENJAMIN HALL explained that the districts had been selected in this way he first of all took the parishes sole, being large parishes with a population of about 70,000 each, as districts; and next he took other divisions, where parishes had been incorporated for Poor Law pur On the suggestion of Mr. WILKINSON, SIR BENJAMIN HALL said, he should have no objection to introduce a clause to provide that where District Boards were not inclined to do certain works, it should be in the power of the General Board, if it was thought necessary, to carry them on. Clause agreed to; House resumed. poses, having in each incorporation a population of about 60,000 persons. He had thought it better to take these divisions than to make others of his own. He conceived that under the 109th clause the Metropolitan Board would have the power of controlling the District Boards. Clause agreed to. Clause 47 agreed to. Clause 48, MR. CHARLES BUTLER wished to know whether there was any clause in the Bill to prevent rivers and watercourses being contaminated by sewers running into them? VISCOUNT EBRINGTON said, if that was done, the question would arise where the drainage was to go. The matter carried away by the drains was no doubt of a most fertilising nature, and means ought to be taken to turn it to account for the purpose of fertilising our fields; but, under present circumstances, he thought the least mischievous mode of getting rid of it was by turning temporarily the drainage of towns into the streams, taking care that it reached the streams below the points where the water was taken for drinking or domestic purposes. SIR J. V. SHELLEY quite agreed with the noble Lord that the sewerage should be carried away from the metropolis, but he was quite opposed to the pollution of the Thames, or any other streams and rivers. The sewerage could be carried away by arterial drains to an outfall provided in lands for the purpose. VISCOUNT EBRINGTON explained that in the observations he made he had reference to more distant watercourses than the Thames. LORD SEYMOUR observed that it was an important question where the outfall of drainage should be. They had been for years saying that no drainage ought to go into the Thames; and he thought that a clause should be brought up, if there was no provision already in the Bill to the effect, declaring that after a certain date no drainage should be allowed to go into the Thames between certain limits. SIR B. HALL said, that he would propose a clause tending to carry out the views of the noble Lord. It would be difficult to fix a date at which the drainage of sewage into the Thames should cease, but a clause might be introduced to provide that works should be commenced for the purpose, and that they should be finished as soon as possible. Clause agreed to. MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS. A CONFERENCE-MESSAGES BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES. That they do desire a present Conference with this House in the Painted Chamber, upon the subject matter of a Resolution of their Lordships, relating to Messages between the Houses of Parliament, and to desire the concurrence of this House thereto. Resolved, That this House doth agree to a Conference with the Lords, as desired by their Lordships. Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to manage the Conference :-And a Committee was appointed, of Viscount PALMERSTON, Mr. DISRAELI, Mr. GREENE, Mr. STRUTT, Viscount DUNCAN, Mr. MILES, Mr. WILSON, Lord SEYMOUR, Mr. EWART, Mr. LABOUCHERE, Sir JOHN TROLLOPE, the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, Sir RICHARD VYVYAN, and Mr. BROTHERTON. Then the names of the Managers were called over, and they went to the Conference; and being returned; Viscount PALMERSTON reported, That the Managers had been at the Conference, which was managed on the part of the Lords by the Lord Privy Seal, and that the Lords had communicated the following Resolution, which had been adopted by their Lordships' House. "Die Lunæ, 21° Maii, 1855. Resolved, By the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in Parliament assembled, That this House is willing to concur with the other House of Parliament (if it shall think fit) in the following arrangement for the transmission of Messages, Bills, and Papers from one Ilouse to the other (namely), That, in addition to the present practice with regard to Messages between the Houses, one of the Clerks of either House may be the bearer of Messages from the one to the other: 'And that Messages so sent be received at the Bar by one of the Clerks of the House to which they are sent, at any time whilst it is sitting or then proceeding: in Committee, without interrupting the Business Ordered, That the said Resolution be communicated to the Commons, and their concurrence thereto desired." Ordered, That the said Resolution be taken into Consideration upon Thursday. STATE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS. On Question, that certain Papers be laid on the table, - MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I avail myself of this opportunity of making a few observations without having given any notice, a custom which, I think, ought never to be abused. I confess it appears to me that the present position of affairs is very critical, and that the honour and reputation of the House of Commons are concerned in not passing them by without notice. This House will, perhaps, anticipate me, but 1 more particularly allude to what took place in this House last night. Upon that occasion the language of Government was, to my mind, so equivocal, and their demeanour so discouraging, that I confess I myself shrunk from the responsibility of acceding, under these circumstances, to the Resolution of the House to adjourn for the recess, for an unusual period, without some means being taken by which I may use the term-the heart of the country may be reanimated, and by which may be obtained some more clear and explicit information of what the position of the country is with regard to the great question of peace and war than they at present possess. Sir, I say that I think that this is a question which principally affects the honour and reputation of this House. The House will, perhaps, recollect that in the year 1853 there were, as we were informed, negotiations of great moment then taking place, on the issue of which the question of peace or war depended. Now, under those circumstances, great and natural as was the curiosity of the country to know in what position it really was placed with reference to a contingency so awful ready as many Members of the House were, in the fulfilment of unquestionably their highest duty, to obtain information from Government during that Session of 1853 on that important question the the House will recollect that it was totally impossible to obtain any opportunity to discuss that important question, because, upon all occasions, those who were anxious to obtain information, and to invite the opinion of this House on those important circumstances, were always informed that negotiations were going on, and that any remarks in this House might have an injurious effect on the course of our diploinacy. Well, Sir, the House will recollect in what that forbearance ended. There was silence in this House during the whole of that Session, notwithstanding the anxiety of the country, and the result was, that the country "drifted into war." The country found itself engaged in a vast and perilous war, without the satisfaction of knowing clearly for what object we had entered into war; and, humiliated and oppressed with the feeling that its representatives in its own House had never made an effort to obtain that necessary information. Well, Sir, the year-I may say even years-have rolled on. We find now that we are involved in a struggle of the largest dimensions. We find that at the same time that we have again, and for a long period, been engaged in negotiations for peace-we find that these negotiations are carried on by the same characters, in the same city, and under the influence and the inspiration of the same Court. The result of the negotiations of 1853-that covered the whole Session of Parliament; that muzzled the expression of the opinion in this House; that lowered, on account of this conduct, the character of this House in the opinion of the country. The result of that silence was not that we assisted Her Majesty's Government in their efforts to secure peace, for war was the consequence-the character of this House was lowered, and the object of Her Majesty's Government was not attained-the consequence of the conduct of this House then was, that we drifted into what I must call a disastrous war. Sir, it appears to me that there is a great probability, now that the negotiations are still proceeding-the same circumstances being in existence, the same characters in employ, the same Court the scene of action -that, if the consequence of our former forbearance was, that we drifted into a disastrous war; the consequence of our prolonged forbearance now may be that we may drift into peace-perhaps an ignominious peace. Now, Sir, we are on the point, in a few days, point, in a few days, of adjourning for a period of relaxation of unusual duration at this time of the year, and, under the circumstances, I think full of danger to the country. We were told last night, amongst the many ambiguous declarations which were made, that the Conferences at Vienna were closed, but had not ceased to exist; that they might at any moment be opened; may they not be opened in the Whitsuntide recess? may we not assemble then to hear that peace has been obtained on terms which may not be satisfactory to the country? What will be the feelings of the people of this country when they learn |